Retrieval-Constrained Policy Optimization for Attack Technique Extraction from Cyber Threat Intelligence

Extracting MITRE ATT&CK techniques from cyber threat intelligence (CTI) reports is an open-set, multi-label problem requiring both high recall (not missing techniques) and high precision (not hallucinating unsupported ones). Existing methods--rule-based, supervised, and LLM-based--struggle to achieve both: rule-based and supervised approaches lack generalizability across diverse attack descriptions, while LLM-based approaches that couple candidate generation and validation within a single inference step suffer from limited recall and precision simultaneously. We propose TTPrint, which addresses this challenge through a diverge-then-converge design inspired by how human analysts work: first extracting broadly, then verifying rigorously. In the divergent phase, reports are decomposed into atomic behaviors and candidate techniques are proposed broadly. A deterministic span localization stage then anchors each candidate to a specific evidence window in the source text. A convergent verification stage retains only candidates supported by both the localized evidence and the authoritative MITRE definition. We contribute two evaluation resources--a cleaned TRAM benchmark (TRAM-Clean) and a new annotated dataset (TTPrint-Bench)--to address known annotation noise in existing benchmarks and elevate the task to document-level TTP extraction. On TRAM-Clean and TTPrint-Bench, TTPrint achieves 76.48% and 87.39% macro-F1 respectively, outperforming the leading baseline by 63.5% and 29.4%. A multi-backbone analysis across six LLMs and a threshold sensitivity study further demonstrate generalizability across model choices and provide practical guidance for parameter selection.

Classifying Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) using MITRE Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, and Common Knowledge (ATT&CK) is essential for proactive defense, but historically required extensive human effort. Pre-Large Language Model (LLM) automation sped up this process, but could not resolve the complex language and multi-step attack patterns found in unstructured CTI reports. LLMs addressed previous limitations by using contextual reasoning to understand unstructured text. However, current evaluations rely on simplified, single-technique sentences that ignore the complexity of real-world CTI reports, which often leads to inflated performance results. Consequently, the baseline performance of open-source LLMs on complex unstructured CTI reports remains unevaluated. To address this gap, we constructed a ground-truth dataset of 2,076 human-annotated sentences (1,281 technique-positive, 795 negative) from 83 complex unstructured CTI reports. These sentences were mapped to 114 unique ATT&CK techniques using a six-phase annotation process, achieving \k{appa} = 0.68 inter-annotator agreement. Using this dataset, we evaluated seven open-source LLMs ranging from 8B to 236B parameters across prompt strategy and temperature configurations. The highest-performing LLM achieved a micro-averaged F1 score of 0.22, establishing the empirical baseline for multi-label ATT&CK classification on complex unstructured CTI. Parameter size showed a statistically significant positive correlation with F1 score. Prompt strategy and temperature produced no statistically significant gains across model configurations. These results indicate that current open-source LLMs are insufficient for production-grade ATT&CK classification. The dataset, benchmark, and findings provide a reproducible foundation for future CTI research.

Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) reports richly describe real-world attack processes, but their unstructured narratives cannot be directly used for automated attack-path reasoning. Existing CTI extraction methods focus on indicators, entities, or TTP labels without modeling the execution conditions and resulting states of each attack step, so the extracted knowledge supports neither state matching nor reachability analysis across multi-stage attack chains. This paper proposes an automated framework that extracts reachable attack chains by modeling each attack step as an attack unit of preconditions, an attack behavior, and postconditions. A multi-stage pipeline assisted by large language models (LLMs) extracts attack behavior skeletons, recovers their preconditions and postconditions, normalizes them into predefined predicates, and repairs broken dependencies; the resulting units are compiled into Datalog-style rules for attack-goal reachability reasoning. On a dataset of 20 CTI reports containing 334 human-validated annotated steps, our framework achieves higher annotated-step coverage than representative CTI extraction systems in recovering attack behaviors. Moreover, by explicitly generating preconditions and postconditions, it produces attack units that are more complete and consistent than those generated by end-to-end LLM baselines. On the extracted chains, Datalog inference reaches the specified attack goal in 19 of 20 reports, while backward search yields 34 attack paths under the generated rules. The source code and experimental artifacts are available in an anonymized repository. .